🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <299@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>In article <22592@galaxy.ucr.edu>, baez@ucrmath.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
>> 
>> That may be how philosophy works - pitting argument against argument -
>> but it's not how physics works; there one pits model against model.
>> Just saying "quantum collapse as a physical local process" won't stack
>> up against a well-developed formalism that people have successfully
>> used for decades.  You need to lay out a precise model of quantum
>> collapse as a physical local process and show how one can calculate
>> all sorts of things with it.  I.e., you have to match the competition.
>> OR you have to get ahold of an experiment that shows the existing formalism
>> makes wrong predictions.  
>
>But my formalism makes the same predictions of quantum mechanics with
>the exception of tests of Bell's inequality. 

Let's see your formalism - where are the equations?  What precisely does
it predict in situations where QM violates Bell's inequality?  Not
words, numbers.  Show how to do some QFT-type calculations using this
formalism (since QFT combines relativity and QM) - say electron-electron
scattering.